Well-Actually War Trall Acky Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Is this something I can download, or is it only available from the purchase of the computer? If the former, can someone link to the page? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Ephesos Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I would expect that you can only get it by buying the whole Microsoft Office suite. Microsoft (heck, and Apple too) are pretty bad about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I know that open source seems kind of scary at first, but I can recommend OpenOffice.org a lot. I've been using it on Windows for many years and found that it was actually easier to work with than MS Office (though admittedly, the last MS Office I saw was 2000; it might have gotten better). It can open and save all MS Office extensions like ppt and pptx, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 You can download PowerPoint Viewer, which lets you display but not create or modify PowerPoint presentations. If you want to create or modify PowerPoint presentations for free, I second Arancaytar's OpenOffice suggestion. I've only used OpenOffice Writer extensively, however. I found it about as easy to use and about as powerful as Microsoft Word 2000 was (I'm lost with Word 2007 and its infernal Ribbon). My only gripe with OpenOffice Writer is that its grammar checking is far inferior to Microsoft Word's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon The Almighty Doer of Stuff Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 My girlfriend has tried to make PowerPoint presentations in OOo, but when she saves them as PPT files and tries to use them on a copy of Microsoft Office, it gives her an error and doesn't open. This has caused problems because normally when she does this she's giving a presentation in class. What might be going wrong? Other than that, I also recommend OOo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Originally Posted By: Dintiradan My only gripe with OpenOffice Writer is that its grammar checking is far inferior to Microsoft Word's. How is that even possible? No, wait, don't tell Dikiyoba. Dikiyoba doesn't want to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Acky Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 Quote: I know that open source seems kind of scary at first, but I can recommend OpenOffice.org a lot. I've been using it on Windows for many years and found that it was actually easier to work with than MS Office (though admittedly, the last MS Office I saw was 2000; it might have gotten better). Sweet. Now I have no excuse to keep procrastinating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Spddin Ignis Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 of course you do....spiderweb is a pretty sweet excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Yeah, don't get anything related to Office 2007. I have to use it every day, and it sucks (PowerPoint not so bad as Word. Excel 2007 is meh, and I haven't tried any of the others in the suite). In fact, don't touch anything that has '2007' in the title. I fourth OO.o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Office '97 continues to serve me well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Spddin Ignis Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 i feel as '07 is an amazing upgrade. i love everysecond of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 You think using MO is a pain? Try working with AutoCAD, which manages to come out with a "new and improved" version every single year, where each new release actually REMOVES commands people use, replacing them with useless fluff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Word has gone mostly downhill since 5.1. Excel is still a good product, though I honestly prefer 4.0, which I continued to run up until I switched to an Intel chip in 2006. The copyright date on Excel 4.0 is 1992, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 who needs excel when you have visicalc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I still use AppleWorks, but it's getting more and more difficult. —Alorael, who has yet to find a program that replaces the ClarisWorks/AppleWorks Draw function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon The Almighty Doer of Stuff Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Is the Draw function a vector editor? OOo has a program called Draw which is a vector editor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Or Inkscape works too. (And yes, AW Draw is a vector editor.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Swimmin' Salmon Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Originally Posted By: Thuryl got abacus fxd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 My good man Thufir handles all that stuff for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 NeoOffice and Open Office also have vector editors. The problem I've encountered with most vector editors is that they have too many features and too much power with instant user-friendliness left as a definite second priority. —Alorael, who should check in on the open source drawing programs again. It's been a few years, and they may have improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 The GIMP is pretty good. Also, for diagramming, I suggest Dia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Originally Posted By: SOT My good man Thufir handles all that stuff for me I wonder how many people got the Dune reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Sudanna Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Wonder how inane that statement was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Originally Posted By: Dintiradan (I'm lost with Word 2007 and its infernal Ribbon). Yeah. Originally Posted By: Twitter <arancaytar> Have had to help my mother deal with Office 2007 UI and saw 'ribbons' the first time. What the HELL were the MS designers smoking? #msfail Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Originally Posted By: Dintiradan My only gripe with OpenOffice Writer is that its grammar checking is far inferior to Microsoft Word's. How is that even possible? No, wait, don't tell Dikiyoba. Dikiyoba doesn't want to know. Seconded. Does anyone actually use the grammar check for something other than entertainment? About all it ever catches me out on are obscure points of style like split infinitives or gratuitously passive voice. Other than that, it's pretty much always wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Apparently, the Ribbon is simpler to use if you've never used Office before the Ribbon. Think about repeated actions - would you rather navigate through the menu each time, or click a button on the Ribbon. Of course, the Ribbon is horrible for people who've used Office before - unless you remember the hotkey, you're lost. And it's ugly and takes too much screen space. Upon close inspection, I discovered the reason why OpenOffice's grammar check sucks so much - it doesn't have one. There's this one recommended extension, but it gave me an error when I tried to install it. I find Word's grammar check very useful - I for one find myself very prone to the passive voice. It catches a lot of grammar errors, like mixing 'that' and 'which' (it doesn't seem to catch 'fewer' versus 'less', though). Even simple things like subject-verb agreement and detecting sentence fragments is useful. I rarely make those mistakes when I'm writing my first draft, but I certainly do when I'm revising at three in the morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The grammar check has a few nice things, mostly with commonly misused words. Sentence structure and stuff, no. It always inverts sentences and mixes up the parts of the sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Originally Posted By: Arancaytrus Seconded. Does anyone actually use the grammar check for something other than entertainment? About all it ever catches me out on are obscure points of style like split infinitives or gratuitously passive voice. Other than that, it's pretty much always wrong. I use it for actually checking. Yes, it's not always right, but that's why it lets you verify each change instead of just changing it. One of the most useful things is probably its ability to sometimes catch spelling errors in which the misspelling is also a word. Originally Posted By: Dintiradan I find Word's grammar check very useful - I for one find myself very prone to the passive voice. It catches a lot of grammar errors, like mixing 'that' and 'which' I don't really see a problem with using passive voice. And somehow, Word's idea of when to use "that" and when to use "which" is pretty much exactly opposite to my idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 There is no problem with using passive voice, unless you overuse it or use it awkwardly. Like all speech forms, it exists to be used! The difference between that and which is essentially semantic -- most people use that for important or limiting descriptions, while which is used for incidentals. Word's grammar check has no real semantic component, so I'm surprised it attempts to judge that at all. Grammar checkers are difficult to develop for English, but Word's attempt seems to be atrocious by any standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 What grammar checking can do is ensure that you have commas before which and no commas before that. That's not absolutely always true, but enough people make that mistake that it helps to have extra proofreading eyes even if they are very stupid. —Alorael, who knows that that which is grammatically correct might involve some interesting word sequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 English grammar is stupid. I also recognize that that that that proceeding the which is grammatically correct as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I think you mean "that precedes" there? —Alorael, who otherwise can't parse your sentence at all. Perhaps a few more signposts on the garden path? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yes, that that that that precedes that which. That "that that" that came before the which, if I remember your original sentence. Stupid page break... Why is it that whenever I comment about grammar, my grammar dies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Originally Posted By: Slartucker There is no problem with using passive voice, unless you overuse it or use it awkwardly. Like all speech forms, it exists to be used! I know it's useful - sometimes it's just more tactful to leave out the subject. Thing is, I'm taking this follow up course this semester that requires me to write a report on my internship placement. The department sees it as remedial English for us poor illiterate programmers. The prof is using Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" as the text for the course, and he has a pretty literal interpretation. I get this one draft back - sections are circled and annotated with a number corresponding to what Strunk & White rule I broke. With a prof who has a prescriptivist take on an already prescriptivist grammar book, I'm not going to be taking any chances. Quote: The difference between that and which is essentially semantic -- most people use that for important or limiting descriptions, while which is used for incidentals. Word's grammar check has no real semantic component, so I'm surprised it attempts to judge that at all. Grammar checkers are difficult to develop for English, but Word's attempt seems to be atrocious by any standard. What Alorael said; as far as I can tell, it just checks for a comma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Originally Posted By: Dintiradan With a prof who has a prescriptivist take on an already prescriptivist grammar book, I'm not going to be taking any chances. kids, this is why you should never confuse a grammar book with a style guide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Ugh Dintiradan, ugh. I'm so sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Fish fish fish fish fish. At my desk, I have Webster's Pocket Grammar Dictionary and The Elements of Style, 4th ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: Dintiradan I find Word's grammar check very useful Then I weep for you. Based on all my experience with all versions of MS Office I've ever used, I firmly believe with all my heart that Word's grammar check utility is much like a very high-quality vacuum cleaner: At the end of the day, no matter what you do with it or to it, it'll still suck. Originally Posted By: Master1 English grammar is stupid. How so? Is it because there exceptions to every rule, with exceptions to every exception? Or due to the fact that it's highly idiomatic? Or that there are countless possibilities for plays on words? Or that you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? Or... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Word's grammar checker is very stupid. It also requires very little time to look through the errors it thinks it sees. Yes, many of them won't actually be wrong, and many of its suggestions will be terrible, but a couple of errors caught in a minute or two are a couple of errors caught. That's useful enough. —Alorael, who would love a better checker. Still, he'll admit that the one that exists is better than nothing at all as long as you put some thought into using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Seconded. Many people read what they think they wrote, not what they actually wrote. It's not as good as having another person read it, but it is much faster. I tend to ignore sentence structure ones, and double check other ones with references when I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.